2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects the fact that the Defendant and the victim have different opinions, but it may be said that the Defendant has made efforts to recover damage to the victim and that considerable damage has been restored to the victim, and that the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, if the relationship between the defendant and the victim, as alleged by the defendant, was the same as the actual husband and wife, the victim was more trusted, but the defendant was committed in the crime of this case and thus, the crime of this case is not deemed to be inferior. The defendant asserts to the effect that he fully repaid the amount equivalent to the deposit. However, as pointed out by the court below, the defendant cannot be deemed to have recovered from the damage caused by the crime of this case by citing the expenses disbursed for the purchase of "divers" in the course of running his business with the victim's money, or the expenses disbursed for the purchase of "divers", which he remitted to the victim as a profit, etc., and the fact that the victim'

In full view of the above-mentioned normal relationship and other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, and the financial transaction relationship between the defendant and the victim, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.